|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2014 12:45:42 GMT -5
You added the word "absolute", which I never said. Okay. Then let me change the wording: Are the predictions and measurements made by physicists and chemists 100% accurate? Okay, 99.9%. The physical sciences are based on reproducibility of results. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2014 12:49:37 GMT -5
In real life, there are frequently choices with more than one "optimal" strategy. Example: You have a choice between a lower paying job in a large city with many cultural and social activities and a higher paying job in a small town with fewer activities. Logic won't help here because logic depends on premises and it's the competing premises that are the problem. One of those are clearly optimal depending on how much you value cultural and social activities vs. having money. The only true case of choices that are both equally "optimal" would be two choices that are literally equivalent, i.e. where the risks, drawbacks, and benefits are of exactly equal value. And that works only when the two choices are exactly the same. You are assuming that the one value is always going to be clearly more than the other. In real life, this is frequently not the case. What do you do then? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 10:52:20 GMT -5
Okay. Then let me change the wording: Are the predictions and measurements made by physicists and chemists 100% accurate? Okay, 99.9%. The physical sciences are based on reproducibility of results. Bob They are based on the reproducibility of experimental results. The reason why physics and chemistry can claim to be so accurate in the first place is because they can rely so heavily on lab experiments. But in most physical sciences this is not feasible. And outside of laboratory settings reproducibility is not a given, and in many cases not even possible (e.g. astronomy, meteorology, geology).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 2, 2014 17:16:19 GMT -5
Okay, 99.9%. The physical sciences are based on reproducibility of results. Bob They are based on the reproducibility of experimental results. The reason why physics and chemistry can claim to be so accurate in the first place is because they can rely so heavily on lab experiments. But in most physical sciences this is not feasible. And outside of laboratory settings reproducibility is not a given, and in many cases not even possible (e.g. astronomy, meteorology, geology). Experimental results AND observation. For example, no one has ever been to a star. Yet astronomers can tell us in detail what individual stars are made of and how they are able to shine. Geologists are not able to reproduce formation of planets, but they have a pretty good idea of how the Earth has changed over the millenia. With observation, hypotheses can be formed and tested just like physics and chemistry. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 11:22:04 GMT -5
They are based on the reproducibility of experimental results. The reason why physics and chemistry can claim to be so accurate in the first place is because they can rely so heavily on lab experiments. But in most physical sciences this is not feasible. And outside of laboratory settings reproducibility is not a given, and in many cases not even possible (e.g. astronomy, meteorology, geology). Experimental results AND observation. For example, no one has ever been to a star. Yet astronomers can tell us in detail what individual stars are made of and how they are able to shine. Geologists are not able to reproduce formation of planets, but they have a pretty good idea of how the Earth has changed over the millenia. With observation, hypotheses can be formed and tested just like physics and chemistry. Bob Observation is not, in and of itself, reproducible. You can't observe the exact same point in time twice in a row. That's why the physical sciences came up with the concept of laboratory observation in the first place, to be able to "repeat" observations in the "same" setting. Also, you seem to be saying that social sciences do not conduct observations or tests.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2014 13:12:41 GMT -5
Experimental results AND observation. For example, no one has ever been to a star. Yet astronomers can tell us in detail what individual stars are made of and how they are able to shine. Geologists are not able to reproduce formation of planets, but they have a pretty good idea of how the Earth has changed over the millenia. With observation, hypotheses can be formed and tested just like physics and chemistry. Bob Observation is not, in and of itself, reproducible. You can't observe the exact same point in time twice in a row. That's why the physical sciences came up with the concept of laboratory observation in the first place, to be able to "repeat" observations in the "same" setting. Can't repeat in the same setting? But if a geologist discovers a new strata, they can easily tell other geologists the location and have them observe it as well. If an astronomer observes a supernova explosion, they and contact other astronomers and have them observe it a few hours later (this has happened BTW). Yes they do, but neither astronomy nor geology requires statistics to any great extent, which is why their conclusions are more precise. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2014 9:58:28 GMT -5
Observation is not, in and of itself, reproducible. You can't observe the exact same point in time twice in a row. That's why the physical sciences came up with the concept of laboratory observation in the first place, to be able to "repeat" observations in the "same" setting. Can't repeat in the same setting? But if a geologist discovers a new strata, they can easily tell other geologists the location and have them observe it as well. If an astronomer observes a supernova explosion, they and contact other astronomers and have them observe it a few hours later (this has happened BTW). Yes they do, but neither astronomy nor geology requires statistics to any great extent, which is why their conclusions are more precise. Bob If you need to support a theory with more than a single observation, you need statistics to figure out whether those observations are accurate and significant. Even if you claim that natural scientists observe with complete accuracy (which they generally do not) there are discrepancies in observations that need to be accounted for. That is what statistics are for.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 5, 2014 11:30:24 GMT -5
Can't repeat in the same setting? But if a geologist discovers a new strata, they can easily tell other geologists the location and have them observe it as well. If an astronomer observes a supernova explosion, they and contact other astronomers and have them observe it a few hours later (this has happened BTW). Yes they do, but neither astronomy nor geology requires statistics to any great extent, which is why their conclusions are more precise. Bob If you need to support a theory with more than a single observation, you need statistics to figure out whether those observations are accurate and significant. Even if you claim that natural scientists observe with complete accuracy (which they generally do not) there are discrepancies in observations that need to be accounted for. That is what statistics are for. This is besides the point. No amount of statistics will ever give you 99.9% chance of predicting behavior of individuals because they have free will. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 13:37:14 GMT -5
So are the physical sciences not 100% accurate because the entire world has free will? Or do you acknowledge other reasons for inaccurate or uncertain observations?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 5, 2014 13:56:12 GMT -5
So are the physical sciences not 100% accurate because the entire world has free will? Or do you acknowledge other reasons for inaccurate or uncertain observations? No, the entire world does not have free will. Yes, there are other reasons for inaccurate or uncertain observations, but that still does not negate the fact that observations of individual people will never be accurate because of their free will. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2014 13:47:49 GMT -5
So are the physical sciences not 100% accurate because the entire world has free will? Or do you acknowledge other reasons for inaccurate or uncertain observations? No, the entire world does not have free will. Yes, there are other reasons for inaccurate or uncertain observations, but that still does not negate the fact that observations of individual people will never be accurate because of their free will. Bob Still affirming the consequent. Remember, we have yet to establish that free will even exists! Without assuming the existence of free will, how would you know that observations of people will never be accurate?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 6, 2014 17:19:29 GMT -5
No, the entire world does not have free will. Yes, there are other reasons for inaccurate or uncertain observations, but that still does not negate the fact that observations of individual people will never be accurate because of their free will. Bob Still affirming the consequent. Remember, we have yet to establish that free will even exists! Most people have the impression that for many of their decisions, they could have chosen otherwise. That is where the idea of free will comes from. What is your evidence that this impression is an illusion? We don't have to start by assuming free will. Observations of individual behavior have never been accurate to begin with. The reason is that people can always choose otherwise. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 2:58:44 GMT -5
Still affirming the consequent. Remember, we have yet to establish that free will even exists! Most people have the impression that for many of their decisions, they could have chosen otherwise. That is where the idea of free will comes from. What is your evidence that this impression is an illusion? Many people have the impression that there is a God. Many people have the impression that they have an immortal soul that has been reincarnated in different bodies over time. What is your evidence that either of these impressions is an illusion? Stated, but not demonstrated. How do you prove that you could have chosen otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2014 15:20:20 GMT -5
Most people have the impression that for many of their decisions, they could have chosen otherwise. That is where the idea of free will comes from. What is your evidence that this impression is an illusion? Many people have the impression that there is a God. Many people have the impression that they have an immortal soul that has been reincarnated in different bodies over time. What is your evidence that either of these impressions is an illusion? Apples and Oranges here. People have direct awareness when they make conscious decisions. And it is easy for them to perceive that they could have chosen otherwise. Let's say you order vanilla instead of chocolate. Could you have done otherwise? Sure. Just call them back before they serve it and say "I changed my mind. Make that chocolate." Now what sort of direct awareness is there that there is a God, or an immortal soul, or reincarnation? Personally, I don't remember any of my past lives. See the vanilla-chocolate example above. Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 15:58:50 GMT -5
Many people have the impression that there is a God. Many people have the impression that they have an immortal soul that has been reincarnated in different bodies over time. What is your evidence that either of these impressions is an illusion? Apples and Oranges here. People have direct awareness when they make conscious decisions. What separates awareness of a conscious decision from awareness of a non-conscious decision, and how do you tell the difference? And more importantly, on what basis can you assert that conscious decisions are necessarily free-willed? Except you didn't choose otherwise in that situation. You chose vanilla first, then chocolate second. Your assertion that this situation could have happened in the exact reverse is unprovable by both logical and empirical means. We are going in circles, Bob. We can (and do) know that you chose vanilla first, chocolate second. We cannot (and do not) know whether you would have chosen chocolate first, vanilla second at any other time. And we cannot (and do not) know whether the result of either choice happening was the result of an unbound will free from any external influences. I don't remember having chosen otherwise, either. So what's the difference between believing in an immortal soul and believing in a free will?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2014 17:12:30 GMT -5
Apples and Oranges here. People have direct awareness when they make conscious decisions. What separates awareness of a conscious decision from awareness of a non-conscious decision, and how do you tell the difference? And more importantly, on what basis can you assert that conscious decisions are necessarily free-willed? I know what a conscious decision is. But what is a non-conscious decision? Exactly what are these external influences that affect your decision? Will the waiter kill you if you make the wrong choice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 6:41:05 GMT -5
What separates awareness of a conscious decision from awareness of a non-conscious decision, and how do you tell the difference? And more importantly, on what basis can you assert that conscious decisions are necessarily free-willed? I know what a conscious decision is. But what is a non-conscious decision? Does that mean you define a decision as deliberate and conscious? Do you claimn, then, that deliberate and conscious actions must be free-willed by logical necessity? For one, if you enjoy eating chocolate, that's an influence not subject to deliberation and conscious action. Either you like chocolate or you don't, and that's going to influence your decisionmaking one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2014 13:17:20 GMT -5
I know what a conscious decision is. But what is a non-conscious decision? Does that mean you define a decision as deliberate and conscious? Do you claimn, then, that deliberate and conscious actions must be free-willed by logical necessity? I never heard of a non-conscious decision before. All I was asking is how you are defining it. But what if (like me) you also have an allergy to chocolate? Now there is another factor to consider. In fact, aren't most decisions like this? Say you want to go to Paris, but you also don't want to spend the money. Or you have a committment in Berlin at the same time. Decisions are seldom simple matters. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 16:33:12 GMT -5
Does that mean you define a decision as deliberate and conscious? Do you claimn, then, that deliberate and conscious actions must be free-willed by logical necessity? I never heard of a non-conscious decision before. All I was asking is how you are defining it. There is a middle ground between the extremes of conscious actions that are the result of careful deliberation, and unconscious reflexes. Many of our actions are conscious in the sense that they are not merely automatic, but nevertheless are not the immediate result of conscious deliberation. For example, most people do not spend every day deliberating whether they should continue to work their job or not. At that point, we cannot really speak of a conscious decision to go to work, since what you assume to be part of decisionmaking (careful deliberation, weighing of competing factors etc.) is not present in the process of action. That's what I mean with "unconscious decision", it is technically a decision because it is not an automatic reflex in the strict sense, but at the same time you are not consciously and deliberately choosing anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 16:35:21 GMT -5
As an aside, even if you could have chosen otherwise, that is not clear evidence for free will, as it is possible that your decision was the result of quantum level randomness, which in turn means that different deterministic outcomes are possible.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 11, 2014 21:56:47 GMT -5
I never heard of a non-conscious decision before. All I was asking is how you are defining it. There is a middle ground between the extremes of conscious actions that are the result of careful deliberation, and unconscious reflexes. Many of our actions are conscious in the sense that they are not merely automatic, but nevertheless are not the immediate result of conscious deliberation. For example, most people do not spend every day deliberating whether they should continue to work their job or not. At that point, we cannot really speak of a conscious decision to go to work, since what you assume to be part of decisionmaking (careful deliberation, weighing of competing factors etc.) is not present in the process of action. That's what I mean with "unconscious decision", it is technically a decision because it is not an automatic reflex in the strict sense, but at the same time you are not consciously and deliberately choosing anything. But you do consciously choose to go to work. You knew when you chose that job that would involve going to work on a regular basis. Going to work every day is the result of that original conscious commitment. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 11, 2014 22:03:47 GMT -5
As an aside, even if you could have chosen otherwise, that is not clear evidence for free will, as it is possible that your decision was the result of quantum level randomness, which in turn means that different deterministic outcomes are possible. Huh? The ability to have chosen otherwise is one of the defining characteristics of free will. If a decision was the result of BLIND, UNCONSCIOUS quantum level randomness, then it wasn't really a choice. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 17:57:56 GMT -5
As an aside, even if you could have chosen otherwise, that is not clear evidence for free will, as it is possible that your decision was the result of quantum level randomness, which in turn means that different deterministic outcomes are possible. Huh? The ability to have chosen otherwise is one of the defining characteristics of free will. If a decision was the result of BLIND, UNCONSCIOUS quantum level randomness, then it wasn't really a choice. Bob Why not? They would look exactly the same, would they not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2014 20:16:17 GMT -5
Huh? The ability to have chosen otherwise is one of the defining characteristics of free will. If a decision was the result of BLIND, UNCONSCIOUS quantum level randomness, then it wasn't really a choice. Bob Why not? They would look exactly the same, would they not? Not at all. Suppose you have two people, one of whom makes a conscious choice and the other "decides" by flipping a coin. Would you say that these two situations are alike? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 8:50:19 GMT -5
Why not? They would look exactly the same, would they not? Not at all. Suppose you have two people, one of whom makes a conscious choice and the other "decides" by flipping a coin. Would you say that these two situations are alike? Bob So if I consciously decide to go along with the coin flip, that's not free willed, but if I don't flip a coin, that's free willed?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 13, 2014 12:30:28 GMT -5
Not at all. Suppose you have two people, one of whom makes a conscious choice and the other "decides" by flipping a coin. Would you say that these two situations are alike? Bob So if I consciously decide to go along with the coin flip, that's not free willed, but if I don't flip a coin, that's free willed? Good one. Your conscious decision to flip the coin is free willed. Of course the outcome of the flip is random. If you make the decision without flipping the coin, that is also free willed. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 13:15:08 GMT -5
But the flip or no flip was already fated from the time of the Big Bang, and also the result of the flip. Does anyone not see how flipped out this is?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 13, 2014 14:31:12 GMT -5
But the flip or no flip was already fated from the time of the Big Bang, and also the result of the flip. Does anyone not see how flipped out this is? Flips are not fated. They are random.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 14:41:41 GMT -5
Bob, you know very well that your reply is a begging the question fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 13, 2014 15:21:55 GMT -5
Bob, you know very well that your reply is a begging the question fallacy. Not at all. What you said implied that "random" is determined, which is not the case. Bob
|
|